Possible Doctor Who feature film?

[Srelex]

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118046098

"Harry Potter" director David Yates is teaming up with the BBC to turn its iconic sci-fi TV series "Doctor Who" into a bigscreen franchise.
Yates, who directed the last four Potter films, told Daily Variety that he is about to start work on developing a "Doctor Who" movie with Jane Tranter, head of L.A.-based BBC Worldwide Prods.

"We're looking at writers now. We're going to spend two to three years to get it right," he said. "It needs quite a radical transformation to take it into the bigger arena."

"Doctor Who" follows the adventures across space and time of a super-intelligent alien in human form, who battles a variety of cosmic bad guys aided by plucky human companions.

"The notion of the time-travelling Time Lord is such a strong one, because you can express story and drama in any dimension or time," Yates said.

The series ran from 1963 to 1989, and then was successfully rebooted in 2005 by writer Russell T. Davies and subsequently by Steven Moffat ("The Adventures of Tintin"). Tranter oversaw the revival when she was the BBC's drama topper in London.

"Doctor Who," starring Matt Smith as the 11th incarnation of the Doctor, is now one of the pubcaster's most lucrative global TV franchises.

The series airs Stateside on BBC America.

Yates made clear that his movie adaptation would not follow on from the current TV series, but would take a completely fresh approach to the material.

"Russell T. Davies and then Steven Moffat have done their own transformations, which were fantastic, but we have to put that aside and start from scratch," he said.

Yates and Tranter are looking for writers on both sides of the Atlantic.

"We want a British sensibility, but having said that, Steve Kloves wrote the Potter films and captured that British sensibility perfectly, so we are looking at American writers too," he explained.

There are two previous films, based on the TV series: "Doctor Who and the Daleks" (1965) and "Doctor Who: Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D." (1966), both starring Peter Cushing.

The BBC has since made a few unsuccessful attempts to develop a "Doctor Who" feature, and shot a one-off telepic in 1996 at a time when the TV series was dormant.

But the combination of Yates and Tranter means this is the most high-powered effort to date to launch "Doctor Who" onto the bigscreen.

Before directing "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix," "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" and both parts of "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows," Yates worked with Tranter on several BBC TV series, including "The Way We Live Now" and "State of Play."

[Anarchist Bunny]

Ok, everyone, we need to get our pitchforks and torches and burn the internet to the fucking ground.

If we(we as in the collective nerds of the internets) can kill a shitty Superman movie that way, we should be able to stop this.

[FaxModem1]

Meh, we've had two non-canon Doctor Who movies and one canon one already, how will one more hurt?

[Jon]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15730665

"Russell T. Davies and then Steven Moffat have done their own transformations, which were fantastic, but we have to put that aside and start from scratch," he said.

Almost implies a reboot?

[The Romulan Republic]

Its not as if its going to replace the series. I'm willing to give this a chance.

[DaveJB]

I don't know about that. There's been a lot of rumours over the last few months that the BBC would bring the TV series to an end with the 50th anniversary special in 2013, and that the future of the franchise would be on the big screen. I hadn't given the rumours any credence until now, but the production timeline they're talking about (2-3 years) does seem to fit in rather well.

[The Romulan Republic]

Really? You've got to be rather foolish to cancel a hit show while its still popular. I would question the BBC executives' intelligence if that's their plan.

[DaveJB]

It may be their most popular show, but it's also their second or third most expensive (Torchwood was up there as well, hence why Children of Earth would have ended the series if Starz hadn't voiced their interest in co-producing a new season), and the BBC has been under a lot of pressure to cut their costs down as much as possible. Axing NuWho would instantly free up quite a bit of cash, even if it is a popular series.

Having said that, they might just be trying to exploit what they've got, and trying to use a film to raise money to produce the TV series. It's the fact that the film would be in a separate continuity that concerns me - it would have been like Paramount producing the Star Trek reboot back when DS9 and Voyager were still on the airwaves, and the only other franchise I can think of which ran separate film and TV continuities at the same time was Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

[mr friendly guy]

I wonder how much BBC make from Doctor Who merchandise? Does DW even turn a profit for them when you combine merchandising, DVD sales, advertising etc.

In any event I will wait and see how this movie pans out. Even if its a separate continuity, if the core elements are still in place, ie he is an alien, TARDIS, time travel (duh) etc I will most probably watch it unless the reviews say its shit. After it I expect we will have crossovers on fanfiction.net between current Who continuity and this other Who continuity.

[Hillary]

The Peter Cushing films didn't harm the franchise; there's no reason why these would do so.

[Broomstick]

The Peter Cushing films weren't even that bad - I consider them better than the 1996 made for TV movie.

[Crazedwraith]

DoctorWhoMagazine and Edward Russell, (Senior Brand Executive, BBC Wales) are deneying anything's actually happening via tweeter. Just the same movie that's been 'in development' for years, they say.

[inviz345]

bbc will lose a lot of money if they stop the tv show as long as who is making money it will stay. i am happy about movie but who are going to be movie doctor, and is it going to be different to the tv doctor.

Top Gear, Doctor Who and BBC Earth These three brands have grown strongly, with sales across
the company rising by 15.0% to £147.3m and profit by 33.8% to £51.5m.
http://www.bbcworldwide.com/media/19346 ... 009-10.pdf

[Big Orange]

The Peter Cushing films weren't even that bad - I consider them better than the 1996 made for TV movie.

The two non-canon Peter Cushing DW films were campy and florid, very much of the British 1960s (like Stingray and The Avengers), but were certainly more funner than the damp squib TNG movies that were not First Contact, and had OK production values for what they were. I don't see why a third non-canon movie would genuinely harm the franchise but it's too early to tell how good a movie spin-off is going to be when it's still trapped in development hell for going onto half a decade now. It seems unlikely that the Beeb will pull the plug on the DW franchise before 2013, but would be more possible after that to save the pay/pensions of the BBC's bloated news staff, but then we're looking too far ahead.

[Drooling Iguana]

The problem with a Doctor Who movie is that the DW premise is heavily tailored towards episodic storytelling. After all, what's the point of having a box that can travel anywhere in space and time if you're only going to use it for a single, two-hour adventure, with any further adventures (if the movie makes enough to warrant a sequel) being a couple of years away at least, if they happen at all?

People seem to think that something that's successful in one medium will automatically be successful in another, but that's rarely the case in reality.

[Bright]

It's not difficult to come up with a good story that involves the Doctor hopping through several different time periods and locations on some sort of grand adventure.

Well, okay, that's not true. It would probably be difficult, but it's certainly conceivable. The real problem would be fitting in a companion. I'd be tempted to go with an in media res beginning, but for a lot of people, a movie would be their first real contact with the franchise, so it's pretty much obligated to start with the Doctor dropping by 21st century Earth, picking up a companion and explaining what he's all about. That's a lot of time wasted right there.

[PREDATOR490]

The closest DW has gotten to a movie of late has been the two-parters like End of Time and Journey's End.
Both of which are complete and utter bullshit.

The only way I see a new movie working is if They FINALLY show the Time War between the Timelords / Daleks which was supposedly epic and ties the gap between old who and new. Sadly, that results in either Eccleston or the previous film actor as the Doctors. Both of whom I do not see returning.

Alternatively they go for the 50th celebration movie broken up into multiple parts akin to how they did it with Tennants last year or OldWho. Would be rather hilarious to see a Doctor Who movie being converted into something like The Hobbit, Harry Potter 7 or Lord of the Rings.

[The Romulan Republic]

It's not difficult to come up with a good story that involves the Doctor hopping through several different time periods and locations on some sort of grand adventure.

Well, okay, that's not true. It would probably be difficult, but it's certainly conceivable. The real problem would be fitting in a companion. I'd be tempted to go with an in media res beginning, but for a lot of people, a movie would be their first real contact with the franchise, so it's pretty much obligated to start with the Doctor dropping by 21st century Earth, picking up a companion and explaining what he's all about. That's a lot of time wasted right there.

Not really. The Doctor can pick up a companion in the first ten to twenty minutes, spend a couple minutes explaining the basics of Time Lords and TARDISs, and then the next hour to two and a half hours (depending on the length of the film) can be the main story.

Nor is it at all hard to fit various settings into a single film. Some examples:

All Star Wars films:

Episode One: Naboo, Tatooine, Coruscant.
Episode Two: Coruscant, Naboo, Kamino, Tatooine, Geonosis.
Episode Three: Coruscant, Uta-Pah, Kashyk, Mustafar, and about half a dozen others glimpsed briefly.
Episode Four: Tatooine, Alderan (briefly), the Death Star, Yavin.
Episode Five: Hoth, Dagobah, the asteroid field, Bespin.
Episode Six: Tatooine, Dagobah, Endor, the Second Death Star.

Also, the recent Star Trek film: Earth, Vulcan, the ice world.

Hell, Batman Begins doesn't have different times or planets, but it goes from Bruce's childhood in Gotham, to an Asian prison, to Ras Al Gul's base, and back to Gotham in the first half of the film.

Oh, and let's throw in every film about a road trip ever.

[Stark]

Unless it's relevant to the plot (and it really, really shouldn't be), why waste time talking about the TARDIS or the time lords, one of which is simply a space car and the other is almost certainly irrelevant?

[The Romulan Republic]

Unless it's relevant to the plot (and it really, really shouldn't be), why waste time talking about the TARDIS or the time lords, one of which is simply a space car and the other is almost certainly irrelevant?

The TARDIS doesn't need a huge explanation, beyond that its a time/space machine, is designed to be bigger on the inside, and a brief explanation of why it looks like a police box. However, the TARDIS, at least in current canon, is not just a space car. It is very much a character. Weather they choose to follow this interpretation is of course as yet unknown, though. And some explanation is wise.

Time Lords will be irrelevant (beyond "I'm a Time Lord, and all the others are dead") unless they alter that aspect of new series canon and have the Time Lords survive. Now, if the Time Lords play a role in the story, then more will have to be explained.

[Stark]

Why? Its obviosuly bigger on the inside, demonstrably travels through time, etc. Why is there a need to explictly recant some series plot summary? Does this help anyone understand the drama?

Cosntantly rehashing origin stories and details that are irrelevant or well-known are major reasons why comic book movies suck, and this stuff is even less relevant than How Bart Bateman Got His Powers. If you can't make a Doctor DW Who story that can stand on its own without creaky fanservice and infodumps, maybe you shouldn't make one.

[Gandalf]

Isn't that pretty much Rose?

Ordinary person meets space wizard, and then action ensues. I don't recall a lot of explanation in that story.

[Stark]

Yeah, they made a lot of effort to lower the nerd bullshit bar so 'normal people' could watch without being driven away by 30 years of beardo trivia or outlandish rubbish. However, Rose played up the mystery and other-ness of the Doctor,which I'm not sure would work well after 6 years of a TV show.

[FaxModem1]

Why? Its obviosuly bigger on the inside, demonstrably travels through time, etc. Why is there a need to explictly recant some series plot summary? Does this help anyone understand the drama?

Cosntantly rehashing origin stories and details that are irrelevant or well-known are major reasons why comic book movies suck, and this stuff is even less relevant than How Bart Bateman Got His Powers. If you can't make a Doctor DW Who story that can stand on its own without creaky fanservice and infodumps, maybe you shouldn't make one.

Stark, like us, you're a geek, and know a lot about Doctor Who, Batman, etc. However, most of the public, once given a few years, will completely forget about a character's history or about how the story originated. The reason this happens is because most people don't watch old movies, TV shows, etc. This goes double for the youth, as they weren't even born when these stories came out, and so they have no idea what will be going on. This is one of the reasons Superman Returns wasn't as liked as Batman Begins, for the modern audience, they were put in the middle of a story they hadn't seen before.(They also got a two hour snooze fest of Superman being a deadbeat dad and going through a mid life crisis.)

Staying with Superman, for this entire generation, Smallville was their first dip into DC superheroes, and didn't know about Kryptonite until they saw it on Smallville. This is why when TV shows, books or literature are made into movies, we usually have some way of explaining everything to us.

With Doctor Who, a LOT of people haven't seen this show, or heard of it. Hell, their only exposure to it could be Inspector Spacetime from Community, and they know nothing else about it. So you HAVE to either do an origin story, or have an infodump. Or be like the Peter Cushing movies, and adapt the source material into what you want.

Also, what's a beardo?

[Stark]

If it isn't relevant to the story, it shoudln't be in there. You can sell your nerd rubbish 'lore' in the background without requiring Yet Another Scene About What TARDIS Stands For Like Anyone Gives A Fuck. Doctor DW Who is even easier to avoid this pitfall because unlike comics everything about it is obvious - the box is blue. It is big on the inside. It travels to other times.

Why sit down and explain it when it isn't necessary and probably doesn't even matter? Frankly, any Doctor DW Who movie that requires the audience to know about arton engery will suck shit anyway.

If you think an 'entire generation' or even a large slice of the Smallville viewship didn't even know what krytponite was, you're a very strange person.